Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) - Eswatini (Ratification: 1981)

With reference to its previous direct request, the Committee takes note of the Government's reports, in particular the information that while there is no statutory obligation for job appraisals, private companies are free to engage specialists in such evaluations.

1. The Committee notes the Government's statements that there is no progress in reducing the differential between wage rates for men and women because they already are paid equally for work of equal value; that wages are regulated through the tripartite Wages Council and there is no discrimination whatsoever in terms of the sex of the workers; and the Convention is applied successfully and there is no information on contraventions because there are none. The Committee recalls paragraph 253 of its 1986 General Survey on equal remuneration where it stated that it is hard to accept statements suggesting that the application of the Convention has not given rise to difficulties or that full effect is given to the Convention, without further details being provided. By its nature, by the way in which it develops, and as a result of the equivocal character of discrimination with regard to remuneration, the application of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value will necessarily unearth difficulties. The Committee accordingly again requests the Government to provide, in its next report, full information supporting its statements concerning the implementation of the Convention, including (i) public sector salary scales, with an indication of the percentage of women and men employed at the different levels; (ii) statistics on the minimum wage rates and actual average earnings of men and women, disaggregated, if possible by occupation, branch of activity and level of qualifications; and (iii) copies of current collective agreements, with, if possible, an indication of the percentage of women covered by such agreements in relation to men.

2. Recalling that its previous direct request had asked for clarification of the non-discriminatory payment of certain elements of remuneration ("weekly ration scales" in a collective agreement for the manufacturing and refining industry, and "allocation of government quarters" in the public sector General Orders), the Committee notes the Government's insistence on section 96 of the Employment Act of 1980 (which states that employers must pay equal remuneration for equal work). The Committee draws the Government's attention to paragraph 240 of its above-mentioned General Survey, where it advocates the use of the gender-neutral expression "spouse" in order to avoid discrimination that might arise from provisions which indirectly assume that the worker or public servant is a man, and thus permit payment of elements of remuneration to workers of one sex only. The Committee asks the Government to inform it whether the Labour Commissioner, who is responsible for enforcing the equal pay provision, has verified the two instances mentioned in the Committee's last direct request, with a view to ensuring that the parties to collective agreements use gender-neutral language and to verifying how government quarters are allocated without using the sex of the workers as the sole determining factor.

3. Noting that the Government refers to a 1995 Bill to amend the Employment Act, awaiting discussion by the tripartite committee of inquiry (mentioned in previous Government reports as having a mandate to examine all aspects of labour relations in the country) before being submitted to the competent authorities, the Committee requests the Government to inform it, in its next report, of progress in the passage of the Bill, and to supply a copy of the text once adopted.